Search results

In 2013, the National Mutual Acceptance (NMA) of single ethical review was introduced into the Australian public health sector to address the timeliness of multisite clinical trials. A clinical trial is usually designed to test the effects of an experimental therapeutic product. While all research involving humans must comply with ethical guidelines, clinical trials testing products in Australia are also subject to stringent regulatory controls making the need to meet trial milestones critically import. Commercial clinical trials offer participating research sites substantial financial and clinical advantages. Concerns that bureaucratic processes have impeded commercial investment have influenced countries, including Australia, to introduce single ethical review, where one ethics review is accepted at multiple sites participating in the same research project. Although a central tenet of the NMA is the standardization of the behaviors and procedures of research review, concerns of inconsistency remain. This raises the question of whether the NMA does lead public healthcare agencies to adopt similar research governance practices.

A questionnaire survey was undertaken to explore the current experiences (n = 149) of the NMA in Victorian public health agencies, and 21 semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore expectations of the future of the NMA. The findings indicated that, while there was conformity to many of the process requirements of the NMA, a persistent focus on the needs of each individual healthcare agency rather than on complying with the national system weakened pressure on agencies to adopt standardization.

The NMA has the capacity to be a powerful tool in delivering quality clinical trial outcomes, maximize research resources and create dependable performance metrics if consistent policies and governance are followed.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

This paper analyzes a multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy, competencies, and resources in order to develop the linkage between institutional and resource-based perspectives by systematically detailing relationships among these factors and organizational viability. The underlying mechanisms of isomorphism and market partitioning serve as a point of departure by which the effects on organizational persistence of two sociocultural processes, cultural (constitutive) legitimation and sociopolitical (regulative) legitimation, are distinguished. Using data on 589 national self-help/mutual-aid organizations, this chapter explores how isomorphism and market partitioning foster legitimacy and promote organizational viability. Results show that the more differentiated an organization’s core competencies and resources, the greater the sociopolitical legitimacy; the more isomorphic an organization’s competencies and resources, the greater the cultural legitimacy. The latter isomorphic processes, however, do not promote greater organizational viability. In fact, while isomorphism legitimates with respect to cultural recognition, it is heterogeneity, not homogeneity, that promotes organizational survival.

The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyse two features of multicultural societies: diversity and equity. The author argues that both these features are necessary for multicultural societies and their institutions to be successful. Diversity is understood to include variations in culture, ethnicity, religion, age, gender and sexual orientation. Equity is understood to include inclusive participation and the removal of barriers to such participation. Diversity without the opportunity for equitable participation can lead to a form of separation; equity without diversity can lead to a form of assimilation; the absence of both can lead to marginalisation; and the presence of both can lead to a full integration.

This is a conceptual paper with a focus on better understanding of how to manage multicultural societies and institutions.

The author distinguishes between three meanings of multiculturalism; as demography; as policy; and as ideology. He proposes a conceptual framework to illustrate the various ways in which intercultural relations may take place at three levels (society, institutions and individual), and with two kinds of groups (dominant and non-dominant). An analysis of multiculturalism policy in Canada and internationally reveals three principles needed for success in such societies: the multiculturalism principle; the integration principle; and the contact principle.

The use of these concepts for better management of intercultural relations in multicultural societies and institutions through mutual adaptation is proposed.

With much debate and confusion about the meaning and value of multiculturalism, this paper has sought to clarify many of the concepts and distinctions.